Hi Jonathan, On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > As a side note, I am probably misreading, but I found this set of > paragraphs a bit condescending. It sounds to me like you are saying > "You are making the wrong choice of hash function and everything else > you are describing is irrelevant when compared to that monumental > mistake. Please stop working on things I don't consider important". > With that reading it is quite demotivating to read. I am sorry you read it that way. I did not feel condescending when I wrote that mail, I felt annoyed by the side track, and anxious. In my mind, the transition is too important for side tracking, and I worry that we are not fast enough (imagine what would happen if a better attack was discovered that is not as easily detected as the one we know about?). > An alternative reading is that you are saying that the transition plan > described in this thread is not ironed out. Can you spell that out > more? What particular aspect of the transition plan (which is of > course orthogonal to the choice of hash function) are you discontent > with? My impression from reading Junio's mail was that he does not consider the transition plan ironed out yet, and that he wants to spend time on discussing generation numbers right now. I was in particularly frightened by the suggestion to "reboot" [*1*]. Hopefully I misunderstand and he meant "finishing touches" instead. As to *my* opinion: after reading https://goo.gl/gh2Mzc (is it really correct that its last update has been on March 6th?), my only concern is really that it still talks about SHA3-256 when I think that the performance benefits of SHA-256 (think: "Git at scale", and also hardware support) really make the latter a better choice. In order to be "ironed out", I think we need to talk about the implementation detail "Translation table". This is important. It needs to be *fast*. Speaking of *fast*, I could imagine that it would make sense to store the SHA-1 objects on disk, still, instead of converting them on the fly. I am not sure whether this is something we need to define in the document, though, as it may very well be premature optimization; Maybe mention that we could do this if necessary? Apart from that, I would *love* to see this document as The Official Plan that I can Show To The Manager so that I can ask to Allocate Time. Ciao, Dscho Footnote *1*: https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqa828733s.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
